N3 and G3 Battleships in WW2

Status
Not open for further replies.
There appears to be so much wrong about the assumptions about the G3s being affordable.

First, the sources I have give the estimated cost of the G3s being 37.5 M GBP for the 1920 estimates. Actual cost may have been much higher. The actual cost of the Rodney and the Nelson was 15 M GBP. So each G3 was at least 25% more expensive than each Nelson.

As to the WTRE, post a link to it or a proper citation and I will read it. Then I will offer a more in depth comment on it than I offer now. However, the conclusion that folks here assert the WTRE reaches--that the United Kingdom could have afforded a far greater naval build up in the 1920s and the economy of the UK would have benefit from such a build up---seems to fly against main stream economic history view and main stream fiscal policy views.

Historically, as I noted in the previous thread, in 1920 the United Kingdom economy was in contraction as bad as in the great depression. The fiscal policy logic that a naval building program would save the economy seems about as plausible as the Laffer curve. Generally, economics teaches that military spending is a poor way of stimulating an economy as it has a far lower multiplier than spending on capital goods or consumer goods. This compounded by the fact that military spending competes directly with capital and consumer spending--the old guns v. butter trade-off. Now if the WTRE folks found some way against this, I would be surprised. More than likely than not, a major revision in economic policy would have been required for the United Kingdom.

Such an argument would of course be absurd as it requires 20/20 foresight by policymakers and politicians of the United Kingdom in 1920s. If you assert that if the government of the United Kingdom could have afforded the G3s by making major change in economic policies requires such a change in the psychology and knowledge of the people involved as to be ASB. The changes in economic policy required for the government would be heresy to most of the government and unbelievable. This is the economic equivalent of The Foresight War. You might as say that the United States and the United Kingdom could have fielded world beater equivalent to the M-26 and Centurion in 1939 because the basic theoretical underpinnings were all researched and understood and the ability. That's the degree of hand waving required. Or more to point, state that if proper fiscal and monetary policy had been in place the great depression could have been prevented. To hand wave away the bad decisions made a government is as ASB as technical limitations. In an ideal world, if politicians and policy makers had a better understanding of economics, sure. But this is not an ideal world, and policy makers and politicians often have a poor understanding of economics.
 
There appears to be so much wrong about the assumptions about the G3s being affordable.

First, the sources I have give the estimated cost of the G3s being 37.5 M GBP for the 1920 estimates. Actual cost may have been much higher. The actual cost of the Rodney and the Nelson was 15 M GBP. So each G3 was at least 25% more expensive than each Nelson.

As to the WTRE, post a link to it or a proper citation and I will read it. Then I will offer a more in depth comment on it than I offer now. However, the conclusion that folks here assert the WTRE reaches--that the United Kingdom could have afforded a far greater naval build up in the 1920s and the economy of the UK would have benefit from such a build up---seems to fly against main stream economic history view and main stream fiscal policy views.

Historically, as I noted in the previous thread, in 1920 the United Kingdom economy was in contraction as bad as in the great depression. The fiscal policy logic that a naval building program would save the economy seems about as plausible as the Laffer curve. Generally, economics teaches that military spending is a poor way of stimulating an economy as it has a far lower multiplier than spending on capital goods or consumer goods. This compounded by the fact that military spending competes directly with capital and consumer spending--the old guns v. butter trade-off. Now if the WTRE folks found some way against this, I would be surprised. More than likely than not, a major revision in economic policy would have been required for the United Kingdom.

Such an argument would of course be absurd as it requires 20/20 foresight by policymakers and politicians of the United Kingdom in 1920s. If you assert that if the government of the United Kingdom could have afforded the G3s by making major change in economic policies requires such a change in the psychology and knowledge of the people involved as to be ASB. The changes in economic policy required for the government would be heresy to most of the government and unbelievable. This is the economic equivalent of The Foresight War. You might as say that the United States and the United Kingdom could have fielded world beater equivalent to the M-26 and Centurion in 1939 because the basic theoretical underpinnings were all researched and understood and the ability. That's the degree of hand waving required. Or more to point, state that if proper fiscal and monetary policy had been in place the great depression could have been prevented. To hand wave away the bad decisions made a government is as ASB as technical limitations. In an ideal world, if politicians and policy makers had a better understanding of economics, sure. But this is not an ideal world, and policy makers and politicians often have a poor understanding of economics.

I'm sorry, but those cost figures are simply wrong.

The KGV's (more expensive than the Nelrods) came it at £7.5M.
The N3's would probably on that basis have come in between 8-10M, maybe less (not sure how the dockyard costs in 1920's compared with the 1930's, but lets be generous.
No way would they have cost 37.5M!!! - thats over half the entire RN budget..!!
Maybe someone is confusing dollars with pounds?? That would make the figures fall in the right area.

The British were actually thinking of an enhanced naval building progrem in the mid 20's as a way of reducing unemployment - that hardly seems like a country unable to find money anywhere. It was cancelled due to political reasons, not financial ones.
 
I think you misread the figures. The four G3s were that expensive-estimated to cost about £37.5M or £9.375M for each G3. That is from the Naval Estimates. The Nelson and Rodney cost around £7.5M each, so the G3s were estimated to be about 25% more. I obtained this figure from on source, but the Wikipedia lists the cost of the Rodney as 7.616 million GBP, which is in line with my other sources.

To say any of the ships were X % of the naval budget is hard to do as the UK naval budget was shrinking. In 1919 UK defense spending was 78% of government spending. It dropped to 35% or so in 1920. By 1923 it was down to 10%. Add to this, the UK GDP was in contraction after the war. IIRC, the 1920 GDP was around 87% of the 1913 GDP and GDP did not rise to 1913 levels until 1925 or so.

Still, whatever the budget numbers, the G3s would have been very expensive. With the economy in contraction, the pressure to build cruisers, the pressure for other non-defense budget items--such as the massive debt to United States, that were over 1 billion GBP--and the pressure to lower the high war time taxes, something had to give. What gave was the plan to build the G3s.

You can say it was a political decision not build the G3s but the political decision was driven by financial reality.

That the UK was considering using a defense program in the 1920s to reduce unemployment (which is an inefficient use of fiscal policy due to the lower multiplier of defense spending as opposed to building infrastructure) and did not undertake the program sounds precisely like a country that can't afford a naval race and has trouble obtaining money. The UK did not undertake the program because it could not afford it.

I'm sorry, but those cost figures are simply wrong.

The KGV's (more expensive than the Nelrods) came it at £7.5M.
The N3's would probably on that basis have come in between 8-10M, maybe less (not sure how the dockyard costs in 1920's compared with the 1930's, but lets be generous.
No way would they have cost 37.5M!!! - thats over half the entire RN budget..!!
Maybe someone is confusing dollars with pounds?? That would make the figures fall in the right area.

The British were actually thinking of an enhanced naval building progrem in the mid 20's as a way of reducing unemployment - that hardly seems like a country unable to find money anywhere. It was cancelled due to political reasons, not financial ones.
 
Last edited:
I think you misread the figures. The four G3s were that expensive-estimated to cost about £37.5M or £9.375M for each G3. That is from the Naval Estimates. The Nelson and Rodney cost around £7.5M each, so the G3s were estimated to be about 25% more. I obtained this figure from on source, but the Wikipedia lists the cost of the Rodney as 7.616 million GBP, which is in line with my other sources.

To say any of the ships were X % of the naval budget is hard to do as the UK naval budget was shrinking. In 1919 UK defense spending was 78% of government spending. It dropped to 35% or so in 1920. By 1923 it was down to 10%. Add to this, the UK GDP was in contraction after the war. IIRC, the 1920 GDP was around 87% of the 1913 GDP and GDP did not rise to 1913 levels until 1925 or so.

Still, whatever the budget numbers, the G3s would have been very expensive. With the economy in contraction, the pressure to build cruisers, the pressure for other non-defense budget items--such as the massive debt to United States, that were over 1 billion GBP--and the pressure to lower the high war time taxes, something had to give. What gave was the plan to build the G3s.

You can say it was a political decision not build the G3s but the political decision was driven by financial reality.

That the UK was considering using a defense program in the 1920s to reduce unemployment (which is an inefficient use of fiscal policy due to the lower multiplier of defense spending as opposed to building infrastructure) and did not undertake the program sounds precisely like a country that can't afford a naval race and has trouble obtaining money. The UK did not undertake the program because it could not afford it.

Sorry, you were a bit unclear and I read that as each. Cost for 4 seems reasonable. Based on displacement, 20% ish more than the NelRods would be around right.

However I still fail to see why a proposed naval building program to help the industry, which was cancelled for political reasons (the new government didnt like the idea)somehow means the country cant afford it.
The two things are quite different.
 
However I still fail to see why a proposed naval building program to help the industry, which was cancelled for political reasons (the new government didnt like the idea)somehow means the country cant afford it.
The two things are quite different.
The things are not all that different. If you mean The United Kingdom could have afforded it if the government was willing to raise taxes and cut other government spending and generally disrupt the economy then, yes, the United Kingdom could have afforded to build these ships. But that was politically impossible and economically damaging. Defense spending is not a good way to cause economic growth. Look it up in macroeconomics texts.

Had the UK pursued such a policy, odds are it would have had even less growth in the 1920s than in OTL and the taxpaying public would have been upset--perhaps upset enough for a change of government that results in the cancellation of these of unneeded ships. Further, construction of the cruisers would have precipitated an arms race in which the UK would have finished second to the United States. The UK was concerned with this. This whole situation is discussed at some length in several texts examining the 1920s naval situation and economics, such as Peden's book. I don't have it handy but you can look it up.

It is nice to wonder how the G3s would have been as ships, even with ill-designed guns and turrets, but it just not realistic to believe the UK could afford to build the ships without suffering major economic damage and starting an arms race. The politicians had just seen the results of the last naval arms race, The Great War.

Now, I am off to do something more useful than arguing about angels on the head of a pin--packing for a week of salmon and steelhead fishing.
 
Last edited:
Dave, you might read the post rather than having a knee jerk reaction. I was discussing economics and naval building. As a discussion of poor regarded economics ideas, I offered the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve, along with most of what is called supply side economics, has been rejected by the majority of economists, just a Marxist economics have been rejected. Both Marxism and the Laffer curve have adherents but they are generally regarded as theories--unlike, say, Keynes' General Theory. The idea of using defense spending as a stimulus is an inefficient and dubious proposition economically is my point. Again, look at any introductory macroeconomics text.
 
As to the WTRE, post a link to it or a proper citation and I will read it. Then I will offer a more in depth comment on it than I offer now. However, the conclusion that folks here assert the WTRE reaches--that the United Kingdom could have afforded a far greater naval build up in the 1920s and the economy of the UK would have benefit from such a build up---seems to fly against main stream economic history view and main stream fiscal policy views.

.

Read it while you can, i'm not sure how long it will stay.

https://sites.google.com/site/alikchi/
 
Dave, you might read the post rather than having a knee jerk reaction. I was discussing economics and naval building. As a discussion of poor regarded economics ideas, I offered the Laffer Curve. The Laffer Curve, along with most of what is called supply side economics, has been rejected by the majority of economists, just a Marxist economics have been rejected. Both Marxism and the Laffer curve have adherents but they are generally regarded as theories--unlike, say, Keynes' General Theory. The idea of using defense spending as a stimulus is an inefficient and dubious proposition economically is my point. Again, look at any introductory macroeconomics text.

Let me guess...

You want me to read something by Paul Krugman instead of something by Milton Friedman, right? As for Keynes, you do know that he postulated something very similar, correct?

No. I don't buy that the Laffer Curve has been rejected.
 
The things are not all that different. If you mean The United Kingdom could have afforded it if the government was willing to raise taxes and cut other government spending and generally disrupt the economy then, yes, the United Kingdom could have afforded to build these ships. But that was politically impossible and economically damaging. Defense spending is not a good way to cause economic growth. Look it up in macroeconomics texts.

Wrong. Cutting taxes might have been out. Or as we're discussed not making some of the mistakes that the UK government made OTL. However the funds definitely existed if the will was there.

There are better ways of investing in the economy than heavy military spending but if you're going to do it something that spreads a fair chunk of money around to maintain considerable local businesses is better than many others.

Had the UK pursued such a policy, odds are it would have had even less growth in the 1920s than in OTL (1) and the taxpaying public would have been upset--perhaps upset enough for a change of government that results in the cancellation of these of unneeded ships. Further, construction of the cruisers would have precipitated an arms race in which the UK would have finished second to the United States. (2) The UK was concerned with this. This whole situation is discussed at some length in several texts examining the 1920s naval situation and economics, such as Peden's book. I don't have it handy but you can look it up.
(1) Debatable given how under-funded the country's industries were OTL.

(2) I fail to see how you can say this when Britain built those cruisers OTL and America didn't even respond. Also, in the unlikely event of the US outspending us, many Britons, not just with hindsight would have considered that a better option than having insufficient and outdated ships and infrastructure when they were desperately needed. [We're seeing a similar situation now with the discussion about a Trident replacement. Various unilateralist groups are arguing that we can't afford it simply because they don't want us to have it on idealogical grounds].

It is nice to wonder how the G3s would have been as ships, even with ill-designed guns and turrets, but it just not realistic to believe the UK could afford to build the ships without suffering major economic damage and starting an arms race. The politicians had just seen the results of the last naval arms race, The Great War.
The argument about the G3 guns have been answered before, but since you didn't like the answer. The current [1921/22] naval race was started by the US in 1916 and quickly joined by Japan. Their desperate to end it now having got some ships out because they don't have the will to complete their programme. Also, while some pacifists are claiming that the naval race caused the war that's untrue. It was a factor but a pretty small one given the level of mistrust between various powers. Despite the instability of the Japanese democracy and the double-standards of the US at this time there is far less chance of war. In fact, if both of them did build their complete programmes, unlikely for different reasons it would probably increase the chance of peace.

Now, I am off to do something more useful than arguing about angels on the head of a pin--packing for a week of salmon and steelhead fishing.
PMN1 has given you a direct link to the files I pointed you at before. As I said in my previous post, if for some reason that doesn't work I have copies.

Steve

PS Is the book you mentioned "Arms, Economics and British Strategy: From Dreadnoughts to Hydrogen Bombs (Cambridge Military Histories)" by G C Peden? I hope it's not "Arms, Economics and British Strategy: From Dreadnoughts to Hydrogen Bombs (Cambridge Military Histories)" as that's bloody expensive. [ I might have the time to spend more time reading in the near future but funds are another matter]. Not sure if any of his other's on Amazon fit the bill.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. Cutting taxes might have been out. Or as we're discussed not making some of the mistakes that the UK government made OTL. However the funds definitely existed if the will was there.
This is where we disagree. I am looking at OTL. You are looking at an alternative economic timeline. I regard this massive revision of the economic history as so politically and psychologically difficult as to be ASB. If you massively change the economy, maybe you have the naval build up--but maybe you end up with Labour or Mosley in power instead. Really, the economic assumptions are simply to great.

PMN1 has given you a direct link to the files I pointed you at before. As I said in my previous post, if for some reason that doesn't work I have copies.
Again, after a very brief perusal WTRE seems based on at best rosy economic assumptions. I am looking at what happened economically. WTRE seems to be postulating a best case scenario. (And, dang, if that link for WTRE isn't the lousiest format for reading. Definitely makes it far harder than need be.)

Is the book you mentioned "Arms, Economics and British Strategy: From Dreadnoughts to Hydrogen Bombs (Cambridge Military Histories)" by G C Peden? I hope it's not "Arms, Economics and British Strategy: From Dreadnoughts to Hydrogen Bombs (Cambridge Military Histories)" as that's bloody expensive. [ I might have the time to spend more time reading in the near future but funds are another matter]. Not sure if any of his other's on Amazon fit the bill.
I recall that being the one that discusses the cruiser race in detail--more than I care to discuss, as fish beckon. There is mention of concern that the Americans would offer a massive response if the UK started building additional cruisers.

As to the quality of the guns and turrets, of course the Anglophiles don't like my answers--but they supported by the cites I provided in last spring's go around on this matter. The guns and turrets were less than a successful and mature design.

Now, to vacation.
 
Last edited:
Interesting thread...

If the G3's and N3's are built I see manning problems, which means some RN ships will probably be scrapped, including Renown and Repulse. And do Hood and her sisters get built?

Also, these ships would probably get priority for prewar rebuilds. Would the Queen Elizabeth's get their prewar work or be delayed to get the G3's and N3's in first? If not they go into WWII in pretty poor shape. I'd have to think if the G3's and N3's get built the Royal Sovereign's get scrapped interwar as being both less capable and posing crewing issues.

Just my thoughts...
 
Interesting thread...

If the G3's and N3's are built I see manning problems, which means some RN ships will probably be scrapped, including Renown and Repulse. And do Hood and her sisters get built?

The POD is after the three improved Hoods were cancelled. There would possibly be problems with manning but Britain is scrapping a hell of a lot of older ships. I think there's an example in the WTRE where it mentions the 4G3's would need more men than I think it was 4 Iron Dukes and the Tiger, which it was presumed would be disposed of when they came in but not greatly so.

I know that the US had great problems manning its fleet even during the deeps of the depression. Not sure what the situation in Japan was like if they had a major expansion.

Also, these ships would probably get priority for prewar rebuilds. Would the Queen Elizabeth's get their prewar work or be delayed to get the G3's and N3's in first? If not they go into WWII in pretty poor shape. I'd have to think if the G3's and N3's get built the Royal Sovereign's get scrapped interwar as being both less capable and posing crewing issues.

A lot depends on how things go as there might not be a WWII. I suspect that if the N3's are built it would mean that there has been no Treaty and there would be a hell of a lot of other butterflies. If the N3's get built I suspect, unless there is a lot of tension, that you're right and the R's would be scrapped or at least laid up, in the early 30's.

If the TL does go something like OTL, with a major crisis in the late 30's then I would say that the G3's would have only a minimal and fairly quick update. The other historical upgrades would be roughly similar to OTL. WTRE suggests that since the industry wouldn't contract so much, they might be a bit earlier starting. Given the presence of the G3's there would probably be more attention to the Hood and the Queens, with their greater capacity for upgrades and less attention to the R class ships. Probably also with the G3's there would be less priority on the Repulse and Renown.

Steve
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The actual economic consequences of the Treaty for Britain actually turned out to be much higher. You should know that at that time, merchant ship market was oversupplied, and the British shipbuilding capacity was much greater than in 1913, as firms already expanded their plants since they predicted a post war boom. The only way to protect the shipbuilding, armament and marine engineering industries in the North was building warships. After the Treaty, however, British shipbuilding and marine engineering industries (note that these were the UK's most important sectors) virtually languished, due to lack of order, and after that the steel and other machinery industries also went down as well. They suffered not 1 but 2 depressions until the rearmament program in 1930s. By that time, its shipbuilding and armament industrial capacity had been permanently damaged in a way that was beyond repair. Besides, you can still export warships to Dominions or minor countries in Europe, Asia or South America to earn money as well as to dispose old ships.
 
The actual economic consequences of the Treaty for Britain actually turned out to be much higher. You should know that at that time, merchant ship market was oversupplied, and the British shipbuilding capacity was much greater than in 1913, as firms already expanded their plants since they predicted a post war boom. The only way to protect the shipbuilding, armament and marine engineering industries in the North was building warships. After the Treaty, however, British shipbuilding and marine engineering industries (note that these were the UK's most important sectors) virtually languished, due to lack of order, and after that the steel and other machinery industries also went down as well. They suffered not 1 but 2 depressions until the rearmament program in 1930s. By that time, its shipbuilding and armament industrial capacity had been permanently damaged in a way that was beyond repair. Besides, you can still export warships to Dominions or minor countries in Europe, Asia or South America to earn money as well as to dispose old ships.
SIX YEARS. The thread has been dead for SIX YEARS. You really should have paid attention to the warning when you posted.
 
Yes, it is an old thread, but it's curious in all the debate about economics of the time, and what other ships wouldn't be around instead; rather than answering the poster's question!
How would they have fared in WW2, and what sort of refitted might they have had prior to it to update them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top